However, let me first state that my views towards the Ancient Egyptian ethnicity is generally the same as Ausar's, that being Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous with darker more negroid populations in the south, and more caucasoid looking people in the very north; specifically the delta. Also, I believe the culture certainly originated in the South of Egypt, and possibly deeper into Africa.

This piece of evidence is mostly for Horemheb:

Some of you have seen this before I'm sure, and for those that haven't, that is the face of King Tutankhamun. It's NOT an artistic representation, but rather a complete reconstruction based on his physical remains using SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

That means they used his bone structure, ethnicity and many other factors to create a REALISTIC depiction of what he looked like in life.

Also, this work was the collaboration of Scientists from three continents (including Europe) so there is no bias at all.

You can find out how they did it here:

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/tutankhamun/

Now, Horemheb, please explain why Tutankhamun is obviously negroid, if the Ancient Egyptians were "supposedly" caucasian.

Also, keep in mind that King Tut is member of Egypt's ROYAL FAMILY, and also that his forebears obviously had the same genetic heritage as he did.

~Carfax

This one is particularly damaging to the African origin argument when presented as Proof. Of ethnic origins as it is one of the least scientific ones out their.

First of all many of the facial reconstructions are based on a limited data base of sculls of which no native Egyptians are representative. Most of the “Negroid” data base are of African America. Which some would say is enough, when referring to African skulls, but as we all know African people are the most divers people of earth, genetically and this can be seen in skeletal remains also. Every ethnic group on earth can find a comparisment in Africa. So a random sample from African America, is by no means an expectable sample to base these reconstructions on.

This reconstruction consisted of a handful of faces from volunteers who fitted the ASUMED ethnic background, no comparisment was even done to one of the 3 biggest data bases in the world.

This from Richards!

Richards: “To create the sample face, Robin laser scans the faces of volunteers. The scans are harmless and take just a few minutes. But with them, Robin builds up an “average face” for Tutankhamun - showing an “average” nose, lips and eyes.

An average of the volunteers faces only!!!

Richards: ”'We scan the faces of a number of people the same age, sex and an “appropriate ethnic” group, so that we've got a suitable average face to start the warping process from.'

Ethnic background was established by proximity not any scientific study of the skull!!

Richards “It's never going to be a perfect portrait - there are just too many uncertainties, even if experts could venture back to the tomb and take a CT scan.”

'I've produced a face based on the shape of a plaster model of the skull - which may not be an accurate replica of the real skull. So this is not necessarily a good match to the actual face - there are too many unknown factors to be certain.'

And in reference to the three continents working on the reconstruction,

“Once Robin has completed his work, it's up to special effects artists to breathe life into the Pharaoh.

In New Zealand, artists 'make over' the bare face, adding eye color, eyebrows and skin tone. The result - a perfect digital image of King Tutankhamun”

New Zealand has no input into the reconstruction only the make over!

“Back in the UK, specialist facial modeler Alex Fort uses the computer images to model the Pharaoh's head in clay then cast it in fiberglass. The final task is to paint the face”

And their is no input into the reconstruction here Either, all worked done by anyone other than Richards is done after all .ethnic choices have been made.

A very poor example to be presenting as Prof. Of origins. Unfortunately this and many others are often presented strengthening the opposite argument.

One reconstruction he used for Natef-Amun,a waab priest dating to the late Rameseside period, showed that even when he used the conventional American caucasian definitions for him the mummy reconstruction turned out negriod.

I will agree,however,that most forensic scienitist don't take in account the facial and skull types of rural Upper Egyptians when doing a reconstruction of the Egyptian. This is criticized by other people in the field. We do have account though of the negriod facial qualities of modern Upper Egyptians that show the reconstruction is probabaly more realistic than given credit for.

See the following:

There, Neave explains that the standards of flesh
thickness he used in reconstructing Natsef-Amun's face were based upon
Caucasian models.

"These measurements..." wrote Neave, "give a range between emaciated and
obese, male and female, but they are not specific to any particular ethnic
group, being based on American Caucasians..."

(Dr. A.R. David and Dr. E. Tapp, The Mummy's Tale, St. Martin's Press, New
York, 1992, page 166)

Neave admitted to me that had he used standard measurements of flesh
thickness based upon black people, Natsef-Amun would likely have come out
looking even more negroid than he did.

see also:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

(Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of
the Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs
(ed.), _Forensic Osteology_, 1986. )

Notice that the primary racial identification characteristics of people
in Upper Egypt agrees with that of Nubians and East Africans (although the
population was *not* homogenous)

etails of Tjeti's face are also typical of the Theban style . The
eyes are large ,outline by a flat band representing eye paints ,and
extended to form a cosmetic line that widens at its outerend;the
inner corner of the eye dips sharply downward;and its eyebrow appears
flat rather than following the curve of the eye. The nose is
broad,while lips are thick and protrouding.

page 55

Vol. 6 Ancient Egypt (2615-332 BC; Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms)
Edward Bleiberg

I believe also there is an article I posted a while back on this forum that stated that Dr. Mohammed Saleh, a curator of Egyptian Antiquities and supervisor of reconstructing of mummies, complained that accurate facial types were not taken of Egyptians living from Asyut to Luxor. He said how one would need to survey the statues and monuments for more accurate depictions of these individuals. Around this area in modern day Egypt is where the more African Egyptians live,so this is only fair to do this because King Tut-ankh-Amun family came from Waset[Luxor] and from the area.

quote:

---

Welcome back carfax, haven't seen you post here in a while. Seriously, this topic has been beaten to death ten times over. It needs to be given a rest here...

---

Thanks, and I agree that this topic has been literally beaten to death. But, the only reason I posted this was to bring another important piece of evidence to the game, in hopes of ending the debate once and for all.

quote:

---

This one is particularly damaging to the African origin argument when presented as Proof. Of ethnic origins as it is one of the least scientific ones out their.

---

First off, understand that the facial reconstruction is not PROOF, but EVIDENCE.

quote:

---

First of all many of the facial reconstructions are based on a limited data base of sculls of which no native Egyptians are representative. Most of the “Negroid” data base are of African America. Which some would say is enough, when referring to African skulls, but as we all know African people are the most divers people of earth, genetically and this can be seen in skeletal remains also. Every ethnic group on earth can find a comparisment in Africa. So a random sample from African America, is by no means an expectable sample to base these reconstructions on.

---

The reconstruction of King Tutankhamun's face using this level of Science is the first of its kind, and cannot be compared to older and more inferior methods..

Anyway, that's beside the point anyway. I agree that the DETAILED FACIAL reconstruction isn't exactly 100% accurate, but DETAILED facial characteristics isn't what I'm debating.

What I'm saying rather, is that the methods they used could accurately depict his BASIC facial features.

In other words, by examining the skull they could tell he was of tropical african descent, and not caucasian/mediterranean/white etc.

Does this mean tropic africans don't have caucasoid looking skulls or vice versa? No it doesn't.. I'm very aware of the diversity of Africans, and I know that not every African has a flat nose, kinky hair and broad facial features. Many Africans have narrow skulls aswell, that look more similar to Europeans rather than say, a Bantu tribe member..

However, you'd be hard pressed to find a Caucasian with a similar basic skull build as King Tutankhamun's, that being broad facial features which look very negroid.

The fact Tutankhamun's body had been mummified didn't make Robin's job any easier. The body may as well have been bare bones - because it's a person's skull that gives away the main features of the face.

Again, let me reiterate.

I agree that "detailed" facial features are practically IMPOSSIBLE to reconstruct accurately because there are so many variables.

However, BASIC facial features can easily be verified with a high degree of accuracy and it's obvious that King Tutankhamun's skull is far more similar to a tropical african's rather than a caucasian's..

~Carfax

ausar the lipps, nose and eyes are based on nothing more than a guess, and are no more than 10% based on the skull. These features often make up the difference in what people view as Negro or Caucasion. The skin depths and musculiture are not that much diffent as i have said in most people.

The sameples as i have read it never specified that they were Lower Egyptian. In fact they have been very vague about the samples.

I dont debate the ethic Accuracy, as i dint realy care what they turn out to look like, but i do debate the scientific Accuracy of reconstructions. I suppose this is why reconstructions are not accepted as evidance in any court of law in the world. And most of the scientific community does not give much weight to them as proof or support of anything.

And thankfully they do not, as we would still be thinking of the Neandetal as a sub human, stupid, hunch back.

You seem to understand little of the method of reconstruction. The main features mentioned are the brow, cheeks, chin and forehead. The descriptive features of a face which makes it recognisable to you and me and as what is clasified by us as race are not included in the main features.!!

The ethnic affinity of a subject is usualy based on very subtle differences in the skull.This is easy in many western world countries were a very small difference can be seen which will give away the its possible skin color, such as the USA, However in many other parts of the world these minute differences are almost impossible to seperate.

This reconstruction, is by no means the most recent, and by no means the most scientific. It is in fact one of the least scientific of the many that have been done.

Not one forensic scientist I have ever spoken to or read of has ever backed any method as anything more than an memory prompt for possible missing persons. And certainly not as a methode of recreating an acurate or even likely image of a 3000 year old person.

If you can find one that will say otherwise I am all ears!

Ozzy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carfax:
OK, sorry to make another race thread, but I want to make sure that people are aware of this particular piece of [b]EVIDENCE because it is perhaps the most convincing. I used to post here frequently about 2yrs ago, but I have gone since then and I probably won't be posting after this anyway..

However, let me first state that my views towards the Ancient Egyptian ethnicity is generally the same as Ausar's, that being Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous with darker more negroid populations in the south, and more caucasoid looking people in the very north; specifically the delta. Also, I believe the culture certainly originated in the South of Egypt, and possibly deeper into Africa.

This piece of evidence is mostly for Horemheb:

Some of you have seen this before I'm sure, and for those that haven't, that is the face of King Tutankhamun. It's NOT an artistic representation, but rather a complete reconstruction based on his physical remains using SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

That means they used his bone structure, ethnicity and many other factors to create a REALISTIC depiction of what he looked like in life.

Also, this work was the collaboration of Scientists from three continents (including Europe) so there is no bias at all.

You can find out how they did it here:

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/tutankhamun/

Now, Horemheb, please explain why Tutankhamun is obviously negroid, if the Ancient Egyptians were "supposedly" caucasian.

Also, keep in mind that King Tut is member of Egypt's ROYAL FAMILY, and also that his forebears obviously had the same genetic heritage as he did.

~Carfax

[This message has been edited by Carfax (edited 03 April 2004).][/B]

---

Ozzy said: You seem to understand little of the method of reconstruction. The main features mentioned are the brow, cheeks, chin and forehead. The descriptive features of a face which makes it recognisable to you and me and as what is clasified by us as race are not included in the main features.!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

ausar the lipps, nose and eyes are based on nothing more than a guess, and are no more than 10% based on the skull. These features often make up the difference in what people view as Negro or Caucasion. The skin depths and musculiture are not that much diffent as i have said in most people.

Ozzy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
Come on ozzy based on the definitions those fine deatails about nose, nose, hair, skin colour and lips is not what makes a caucasian or negro. Its all in the skull even thought the skull gives us a great idea as to how wide a person's nasal base is. He is still caucasian based on the new definitions of race divisions.

---

Again!!!

From the same people who did the Neferititi reconstruction is this.

From Martin P. Evison on the University of Sheffield. “Digitised images of facial features not predicted by the skull contours (nose, eyes and mouth) must be added by separate means to generate a wire frame face, onto which colour and texture can subsequently be rendered. Richard Neave also states “bear in mind that the shape of the nose can be predicted with only about sixty per cent accuracy and the shape of the tip with only about forty per cent.”

The program used at Sheffield has features build into the model for the “selective” application of tissue depth datasets defined by parameters such as age, sex, build or ethnic origin.

"Selective aplication"!!!!

The ethnic relationship is infered, and can very rearly be defined by the skull alone, show me a forensic scientist that will back up what you say Keino. Not one I have ever read or spoken to has claimed that they can.!!

Keino, I am not interested in the definision of Negro and caucasian as you have made issue of. It makes little difference to the subject what catagory you wish to place any skull in. The fact is, and your facts are wrong, that the skull shows little significant differences that foresic scientist use as a difinitive indicator for race.

If you can quote one forensic scientist that says he can please quote him or her. As I would like to speek to them.

As for nasle indicies, even Diop had a problem with this.

Diop:"It is worth noting that the nasal indices of Ethiopians and Dravidians would seem to approximate them to the Germanic peoples, though both are black races".

“There are numerous techniques to sculpture a face onto the skull, all of which rely on the reproduction of a potentially recognizable face using the published soft tissue thicknesses in different racial groups . (Phillips and Smuts 1996; Rhine and Campbell 1980; Rhine, Moore, and Weston 1982; Suzuki 1948).”

Further this from Dr. Alf Linney, reader in Medical Physics at University College London and part of the group at UCL
Medical Physics at University College London and part of the group at UCL involved in 3D facial reconstruction said in most cases sex and race can be determined by a combination of skull measurements. Proportional variations - in brow and cheek size for example - all provide signposts for identifying a skull's sexual and racial origins. But this methodology, added Linney, has a margin of error. If the skull comes from a person of mixed race origins, for instance, this information may not be evident in its shape.”

“But there are several hurdles between a skull and a fully-detailed facial reproduction said Linney. Reconstructions require a bone foundation if computer-generated flesh is to be applied accurately. However, cartilage that makes up the ears and nose is usually unusable or not present on a decomposed skull. This means that - without prints - an accurate re-creation of ears is currently out of reach. Meanwhile, the nasal spine is expected to yield some clues to the shape of the nose, but no absolutes have yet been concluded. Lips are also problematic.
"So what you end up with is a facial shape with a reasonable representation of the nose, no proper representation of the ears and possibly a vague representation of the lips," said Linney.

I can keep on quoting these all day, not one will support a racial connection.

And Kieno, it is an excepted phcycological fact that the main identifiers in facial recogision are the nose mouth and eyes, this combined with skin color are also the main identifiers of race. If this is not correct please direct me to a psychological study that refutes this. I am aware this has been undisputed since the 1950s. Almost all quotes I can pull from this thread refer to these identifiers besides color as racial identifiers, even you!

So with this in mind we have the main identifiers of a persons reconisablity almost imposible to reproduce from a skull! The best we can hope for is ( In the case of recent reconstructions of crime victims) with the help of family and physical evidence found at the sceen an indication of the persons appearance.

Again this is why no reconstruction, today is acceptable in any court of law in the world. Even as an identifier of race. Check your US laws you will find it so. As not one Forensic scientist could produce evidence that they could produce the race of an individual by the skull alone.

With that said the rest of the skull reconstruction is based on the racial, sexual, and age estimates concluded or inferred, the MAIN FACIAL INDICATORS and musculature, and skin dept, are then reconstructed on an average basis in relation to these findings.

The initial findings will and do influence the final outcome. Hence the many and varied reconstructions done on historical figures.

As I have said before, there have been 60 main suggested indicators to separate race via skeleltal remains of modern humans. An experiment on all of them found not one to be represented in any so called race exclusively. And in fact most had many representations in numerouse other races.

Im not saying King Tut was not black, or he was not Negro, or he was not Mediterianian, or what ever, It makes little difference to me. I am saying that basing or supporting an argument on the basis of these reconstruction is counterproductive for those who do so, as they support nothing, and weeken an argument.

Ozzy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Again!!!

From the same people who did the Neferititi reconstruction is this.

From Martin P. Evison on the University of Sheffield. “Digitised images of facial features not predicted by the skull contours (nose, eyes and mouth) must be added by separate means to generate a wire frame face, onto which colour and texture can subsequently be rendered. Richard Neave also states “bear in mind that the shape of the nose can be predicted with only about sixty per cent accuracy and the shape of the tip with only about forty per cent.”

The program used at Sheffield has features build into the model for the “selective” application of tissue depth datasets defined by parameters such as age, sex, build or ethnic origin.

"Selective aplication"!!!!

The ethnic relationship is infered, and can very rearly be defined by the skull alone, show me a forensic scientist that will back up what you say Keino. Not one I have ever read or spoken to has claimed that they can.!!

Keino, I am not interested in the definision of Negro and caucasian as you have made issue of. It makes little difference to the subject what catagory you wish to place any skull in. The fact is, and your facts are wrong, that the skull shows little significant differences that foresic scientist use as a difinitive indicator for race.

If you can quote one forensic scientist that says he can please quote him or her. As I would like to speek to them.

As for nasle indicies, even Diop had a problem with this.

Diop:"It is worth noting that the nasal indices of Ethiopians and Dravidians would seem to approximate them to the Germanic peoples, though both are black races".

“There are numerous techniques to sculpture a face onto the skull, all of which rely on the reproduction of a potentially recognizable face using the published soft tissue thicknesses in different racial groups . (Phillips and Smuts 1996; Rhine and Campbell 1980; Rhine, Moore, and Weston 1982; Suzuki 1948).”

Further this from Dr. Alf Linney, reader in Medical Physics at University College London and part of the group at UCL
Medical Physics at University College London and part of the group at UCL involved in 3D facial reconstruction said in most cases sex and race can be determined by a combination of skull measurements. Proportional variations - in brow and cheek size for example - all provide signposts for identifying a skull's sexual and racial origins. But this methodology, added Linney, has a margin of error. If the skull comes from a person of mixed race origins, for instance, this information may not be evident in its shape.”

“But there are several hurdles between a skull and a fully-detailed facial reproduction said Linney. Reconstructions require a bone foundation if computer-generated flesh is to be applied accurately. However, cartilage that makes up the ears and nose is usually unusable or not present on a decomposed skull. This means that - without prints - an accurate re-creation of ears is currently out of reach. Meanwhile, the nasal spine is expected to yield some clues to the shape of the nose, but no absolutes have yet been concluded. Lips are also problematic.
"So what you end up with is a facial shape with a reasonable representation of the nose, no proper representation of the ears and possibly a vague representation of the lips," said Linney.

I can keep on quoting these all day, not one will support a racial connection.

And Kieno, it is an excepted phcycological fact that the main identifiers in facial recogision are the nose mouth and eyes, this combined with skin color are also the main identifiers of race. If this is not correct please direct me to a psychological study that refutes this. I am aware this has been undisputed since the 1950s. Almost all quotes I can pull from this thread refer to these identifiers besides color as racial identifiers, even you!

So with this in mind we have the main identifiers of a persons reconisablity almost imposible to reproduce from a skull! The best we can hope for is ( In the case of recent reconstructions of crime victims) with the help of family and physical evidence found at the sceen an indication of the persons appearance.

Again this is why no reconstruction, today is acceptable in any court of law in the world. Even as an identifier of race. Check your US laws you will find it so. As not one Forensic scientist could produce evidence that they could produce the race of an individual by the skull alone.

With that said the rest of the skull reconstruction is based on the racial, sexual, and age estimates concluded or inferred, the MAIN FACIAL INDICATORS and musculature, and skin dept, are then reconstructed on an average basis in relation to these findings.

The initial findings will and do influence the final outcome. Hence the many and varied reconstructions done on historical figures.

As I have said before, there have been 60 main suggested indicators to separate race via skeleltal remains of modern humans. An experiment on all of them found not one to be represented in any so called race exclusively. And in fact most had many representations in numerouse other races.

Im not saying King Tut was not black, or he was not Negro, or he was not Mediterianian, or what ever, It makes little difference to me. I am saying that basing or supporting an argument on the basis of these reconstruction is counterproductive for those who do so, as they support nothing, and weeken an argument.

Ozzy

---

Ozzy, my point is this: 1) the skull does not tell the shape and contour of the apex of the nose. However, the wideness of the BASE of his nose is solely based on the skull. 2) I was being sarcastic with the caucasian thing as I think the nomenclature is purely selective and subjective many of the times.
I don't think that using these reconstructions weakens any claims of African-ness of the AEs. It gives people a chance to see and decide without being told. Based on the base of tut's nose (which is a portion of the skull, one can tell its was very wide and not typical of what the average person considers caucasian. I too believe that skull is very unreliable when its come to "race". None of these skull dimentions are exempt or even uncommon from Black Africa, but some are very rare in caucasians and asians. Black Africa (kinky hair and black skin) has have every single skull shape on the face of the planet and why wouldn't it because after all didn't they say and proved that its was a migration out of Africa? Genetics and history is studied as if "whites" arose from someone other than black africans. Shouldn't we expect African Blacks to have all the skull dimentions of all humanity from asian to caucasian? After all the origins of humans are black right?I have seen pictures of African who are black/brown skinned and kinky hair with epicantal holds and very wide asian faces and are supposed to have no admixture. See Ozzy my problem is that we don't follow race and genetics from the same perspective as evolution. If we did we won't have any other this mix-up and nonsensical rubbish that we sometime spew as science. Honestly you make some very valid points but I was just pointing out things from the way the present historical anthropologist and genetcist which I think is sometimes illogical and incongruent. Again if we study genetics, anthropology and race from an evolutionary point of view then there will be no confusion. Look at this Capoid: Southern African whom they say is not a negro from this site. Look at the Asian features and all. What's your opinion?
http://racialreality.shorturl.com/

click on races of man.

I am not endorsing this website i am just looking at the vast phenotype in black africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Keino, Good data....The web site points up some standard misconceptions. The problem for many is that the movement of peoples in modern times has in places been substantial. Europeans into the western hemisphere and Australia etc. The real problem with these goofy Africanist is that they want to distort history for political reasons. They find the outcome they want and then scramble around trying to find or twist information to support it.

---

I just posted that site as a visual aid to the post I did concerning the many different phenotypes of black africans. You can believe what you want to believe. Again I do not endorse that website!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Again!!!

From the same people who did the Neferititi reconstruction is this.

From Martin P. Evison on the University of Sheffield. “Digitised images of facial features not predicted by the skull contours (nose, eyes and mouth) must be added by separate means to generate a wire frame face, onto which colour and texture can subsequently be rendered. Richard Neave also states “bear in mind that the shape of the nose can be predicted with only about sixty per cent accuracy and the shape of the tip with only about forty per cent.”

The program used at Sheffield has features build into the model for the “selective” application of tissue depth datasets defined by parameters such as age, sex, build or ethnic origin.

"Selective aplication"!!!!

The ethnic relationship is infered, and can very rearly be defined by the skull alone, show me a forensic scientist that will back up what you say Keino. Not one I have ever read or spoken to has claimed that they can.!!

Keino, I am not interested in the definision of Negro and caucasian as you have made issue of. It makes little difference to the subject what catagory you wish to place any skull in. The fact is, and your facts are wrong, that the skull shows little significant differences that foresic scientist use as a difinitive indicator for race.

If you can quote one forensic scientist that says he can please quote him or her. As I would like to speek to them.

As for nasle indicies, even Diop had a problem with this.

Diop:"It is worth noting that the nasal indices of Ethiopians and Dravidians would seem to approximate them to the Germanic peoples, though both are black races".

“There are numerous techniques to sculpture a face onto the skull, all of which rely on the reproduction of a potentially recognizable face using the published soft tissue thicknesses in different racial groups . (Phillips and Smuts 1996; Rhine and Campbell 1980; Rhine, Moore, and Weston 1982; Suzuki 1948).”

Further this from Dr. Alf Linney, reader in Medical Physics at University College London and part of the group at UCL
Medical Physics at University College London and part of the group at UCL involved in 3D facial reconstruction said in most cases sex and race can be determined by a combination of skull measurements. Proportional variations - in brow and cheek size for example - all provide signposts for identifying a skull's sexual and racial origins. But this methodology, added Linney, has a margin of error. If the skull comes from a person of mixed race origins, for instance, this information may not be evident in its shape.”

“But there are several hurdles between a skull and a fully-detailed facial reproduction said Linney. Reconstructions require a bone foundation if computer-generated flesh is to be applied accurately. However, cartilage that makes up the ears and nose is usually unusable or not present on a decomposed skull. This means that - without prints - an accurate re-creation of ears is currently out of reach. Meanwhile, the nasal spine is expected to yield some clues to the shape of the nose, but no absolutes have yet been concluded. Lips are also problematic.
"So what you end up with is a facial shape with a reasonable representation of the nose, no proper representation of the ears and possibly a vague representation of the lips," said Linney.

I can keep on quoting these all day, not one will support a racial connection.

And Kieno, it is an excepted phcycological fact that the main identifiers in facial recogision are the nose mouth and eyes, this combined with skin color are also the main identifiers of race. If this is not correct please direct me to a psychological study that refutes this. I am aware this has been undisputed since the 1950s. Almost all quotes I can pull from this thread refer to these identifiers besides color as racial identifiers, even you!

So with this in mind we have the main identifiers of a persons reconisablity almost imposible to reproduce from a skull! The best we can hope for is ( In the case of recent reconstructions of crime victims) with the help of family and physical evidence found at the sceen an indication of the persons appearance.

Again this is why no reconstruction, today is acceptable in any court of law in the world. Even as an identifier of race. Check your US laws you will find it so. As not one Forensic scientist could produce evidence that they could produce the race of an individual by the skull alone.

With that said the rest of the skull reconstruction is based on the racial, sexual, and age estimates concluded or inferred, the MAIN FACIAL INDICATORS and musculature, and skin dept, are then reconstructed on an average basis in relation to these findings.

The initial findings will and do influence the final outcome. Hence the many and varied reconstructions done on historical figures.

As I have said before, there have been 60 main suggested indicators to separate race via skeleltal remains of modern humans. An experiment on all of them found not one to be represented in any so called race exclusively. And in fact most had many representations in numerouse other races.

Im not saying King Tut was not black, or he was not Negro, or he was not Mediterianian, or what ever, It makes little difference to me. I am saying that basing or supporting an argument on the basis of these reconstruction is counterproductive for those who do so, as they support nothing, and weeken an argument.

Ozzy

---

Different dyansties throughout Egypt came from different regions of Egypt so this explains why they are diverse as they were. Modern rural Egyptians living in Upper Egypt are the direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians. Majority of these people have pronagthous jaws,teeth shape,and occasional wide nose. These features are been present in the Egyptian population since the Neolithic times.

Lower Egyptians are oriented towards Western Asian,or possibly themselves are variants of Coastal African types that know inhabit the Magreb.

Upper and Lower Egypt have always been distinct people with a unified culture beginning in the Dyanstic era. Although,sometimes the cultural traits of the north deveviates.

Here is a nice phorensic overview of modern Upper Egyptians[direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians]:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

(Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of
the Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs
(ed.), _Forensic Osteology_, 1986. )

PS Hermst,I try my hardest to keep politics out of the discussion. I am getting the impression that people care much more about what the ancient Egyptians appeared than of their cultural importance. Either way this conversation does not bother me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hermst:
I`ve lived in South Africa and England and I`ve reached the conclusion that people lie when they say they don`t care about what race the Egyptians were.You are a perfect case to boot. You say race can not be determined from a skull alone but what about the distal limb proportions of the general population and the royalty as evidenced by skeletal remains? What impression do they give because this has an obvious bearing on whether the right general physical type has been correctly inferred. Furthermore distal limb proportions can settle the question of race where crania found in Africa show narrow nasal and interorbital breadths characteristic of Europeans. You talk about other reconstructions but surely the sum of reconstructions gives a general impression. What impression might that be? I find it bordering on the farcical that someone as obviously intelligent as yourself would fail to bring up the issues I have raised on on your own and then claim race or ethnicity, as you like to call it on this site(it is actually something different),does not matter to you. You seem as partisan as a prosecuting lawyer.
Humanity:1
"Liberals":0
OUCHHH!!!

---

1.
I didnt bring up the subject of distal limb proportions nor any other skeletal differences as they are not part of the data bases or methodes used in the reconstruction methodes, and my argumant is based on the methods used not the ethnic origins of the subject. If you had read any of them you would have known that. (Actualy, I read that one did.)
2. Regardless of your conclusions of who you feel lies about the importance of race to an individual do not include me in your interpretations untill you know me. I stand by my statment that it matters little to me. And most here know my opinion regarding the ethnic origin of Egyptians, and as it is the oposite of what you infer, you have read little of previouse discussions on this board.
4.As for distal limb proportions, as far as I know they can be used for racial determination, but again its easier in mixed racial societies. As Many populations on the same continents have shown to produce varients of the both extreems. RE: Australian Aboriginal remains have shown the two extreems. But geneticaly neither show any difference to current populations, What would you infer from that? Limb proportions are also influenced by the environment, as shorter limbs in colder climates produce a smaller surface area for heat to escape. The current Alaskan populations show these extreems. The Genetic adaption is estimated to be only 10,000 years.
5.As "The sum of reconstructions" on the same subjects has produced many and greatly varying results, (King TUT 6 very different reconstructions) My "impression" is that it gives far from a "genral impression". More correctly it proves my point that the reconstruction methods used are by no means an acurate, nor even suggestive of the general appearance. And should not be used as "proof" or "Evidance" of the apearance or ethnic origins.

As a defending Lawyer you fail to defend your case.

Just so you are clear, I am arguing the process of forensic reconstruction not the racial or ethnic relationship of the subjects.

Modern genetic tests show that the ancient and modern Egyptians were racially diverse people. It is just this simple.